Exploration Space Suit Architecture and Destination Environmental-Based Technology Development Terry R. Hill1 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 77058 Shane M. McFarland2 MEI Technologies, Houston, Texas 77058 and F. Adam Korona3 Jacobs Technology Inc., Houston, Texas 77058 This paper continues forward where EVA Space Suit Architecture: Low Earth Orbit Vs. Moon Vs. Mars1 left off in the development of a space suit architecture that is modular in design and could be reconfigured prior to launch or during any given mission depending on the tasks or destination. This paper addresses the space suit system architecture and technologies required based on human exploration (EVA) destinations, and describes how these systems should evolve to meet the future exploration EVA needs of the US human space flight program. A series of exercises and analyses provided a strong indication that the Constellation Program space suit architecture, with its maximum reuse of technology and functionality across a range of mission profiles and destinations, is postured to provide a viable solution for future space exploration missions. The destination environmental analysis demonstrates that the modular architecture approach could provide the lowest mass and mission cost for the protection of the crew, given any human mission outside of low-Earth orbit. Additionally, some of the high-level trades presented here provide a review of the environmental and non-environmental design drivers that will become increasingly important as humans venture farther from Earth. This paper demonstrates a logical clustering of destination design environments that allows a focused approach to technology prioritization, development, and design that will maximize the return on investment, largely independent of any particular design reference mission. Nomenclature AU = Astronomical Unit CSSE = Constellation Space Suit Element CxP = NASA’s Constellation Program DRM = design reference mission EMU = Extravehicular Mobility Unit EPOXI = Extra-solar Planet Observation and Deep Impact Extended Investigation EVA = extravehicular activity GCR = galactic cosmic ray GEO = geostationary Earth orbit ISS = International Space Station LEO = low-Earth orbit 1 ISS EMU Space Suit Sub-system Engineer, Crew & Thermal Systems Division, Space Suit and Crew Survival System Branch / EC5. 2 Senior Project Engineer, Space Suit and Crew Survival Systems Branch, AIAA Member. 3 System Engineer, Space Suit and Crew Survival Systems Branch 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics MLI = multilayer insulation NCRP = National Council for Radiation Protection NEA = near-Earth asteroid NEO = near-Earth object REID = risk of exposure-induced death SPE = solar particle event STEREO = Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory TMG = thermal micrometeoroid protection garment I. Introduction: Destinations for Human Exploration n looking forward to the future of human space exploration, it is important to first consider the possible Idestinations that humans can realistically travel to, survive in, and possibly live in for extended periods of time with reasonable resources and budget. For example, it can be assumed with some level of confidence that there will be no crewed missions to Mercury due to the required infrastructure, logistics train, and rocket design needed to climb into and out of the inner gravity well of the sun. However, it is reasonable to consider visitation of the Earth- sun libration points. In following this line of thought, and by using current knowledge of the physical environments of destinations in the solar system from which one can return in a decade or less, one can quickly identify the destination design drivers required for exploration-class space suits. Historically, technology development for human space exploration primarily did not happen until the mission was defined and funded or was done at the component level in efforts to improve existing systems. Low technology readiness level technology development for pursuing advanced concepts has also been limited. The logic in this is understood, given that humans only started venturing beyond the relatively benign environment of Earth in the last 50 years and had little idea of what might be encountered at each destination. Today, however, this approach should be questioned. Humans have either physically stepped on, landed robotic probes, placed orbital vehicles around, or had close fly-bys of every significant body in the solar system – with the exception of Pluto. Now, with the volumes of data growing at a near-geometric rate, the knowledge of the environments in which humans can venture is understood to the point where common design drivers and required design elements can be identified with reasonable confidence. Given this knowledge of the environments and lessons learned from human space flight operations to date, NASA conducted an internal assessment (performed within the Space Suit and Crew Survival Systems Branch at the Johnson Space Center) of the progress that has been made in human exploration space suit technology with respect to the “design space” proposed in this paper. The following pages address the methodical approach to common and probable destination environments, and how this should affect the prioritization of space suit technology development in the future. II. Overview of a Flexible Space Suit Architecture The space suit architecture developed by NASA’s Constellation Space Suit Element (CSSE) only addressed crew survival, low Earth orbital operations, and lunar surface extravehicular activities (EVAs); however, at the very core, this architecture had many, if not all, key design-driving elements that will be required for human exploration in the solar system. The CSSE team* addressed this challenge by fully embracing “clean-sheet” design approach and “textbook” systems engineering methodology by first defining the operational concepts, which focused on the development of an architecture with all Constellation Program (CxP) design reference missions (DRMs), and by keeping an eye on life cycle program costs. A comprehensive review of the functional designs, strengths, and limitations of previous US space suits, in addition to what is known of Russian space suits, took place to deduce historical lessons learned based not only on what did not work but, more importantly, on what worked correctly. The goal set forth by the CxP – to accomplish the daunting task of meeting all space suit design requirements in the extreme environments previously detailed with a single system – hinges on an arrangement that not only uses common hardware across multiple mission phases (to reduce developmental and logistics costs), but also features an open architecture that could be reconfigured and can leverage off components used during other mission phases, where possible.1 * This team was comprised of NASA civil servants and support contractor workforce with the responsibility of defining CxP space suit architecture and associated functional requirements and to later become the NASA oversight and subsystem managers. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics The key design figures of merit for the CxP Space Suit were used in evaluating all of the different architectures, some of which later became architecture design drivers: operational performance; work efficiency; launch, entry, and abort overhead; suit attributed mass and volume; field maintenance; commonality (design and hardware); extensibility; technical risk/feasibility; life cycle costs; and development schedule risk. The following were the CxP suit performance criteria that defined the high-level functional requirements for the suit architecture: intravehicular mobility; microgravity mobility; microgravity environmental protection (thermal, radiation, micrometeoroid protection); comfort (un-/pressurized); ease of donning and doffing; crew ability to escape the vehicles while wearing the suit; suit sizing methodology; ability of the suit to have sizing adjustments; high operational reliability; high evolvability and adaptability; extraterrestrial surface mobility; and extraterrestrial surface environmental protection After 5 years and multiple design iterations, the CSSE suit architecture consisted of the following modular, or swap-able (from one configuration to another), hardware elements: helmet bubble and communications cap; gloves optimized for pressurized usage; boots optimized for 1g vehicle escape; lower arms and legs with mobility joints and umbilical connectors; and restraint mechanisms that are common in design. The fire protection outer cover layer and EVA thermal multilayer insulation (MLI)/thermal micrometeoroid protection garment (TMG)† were unique enough to discrete mission phases that it was felt they would not be included functionally in the modular hardware so as to reduce the overhead of carrying around hardware for infrequent use or as bad-day risk mitigation. The outer layer of the TMG is not only fire resistant, it provided low emissivity for reflecting solar radiation – thus the white coloration – as well as cut, puncture, and abrasion resistance. The outer layer of the MLI/TMG might require a different coloration on Mars to meet the emissivity requirements for that environment. In addition, the thin atmosphere of Mars would drive a departure from traditional TMG materials to the use of a high-performance conductive pathway insulate such as aerogel. With the maturity of human space exploration still in its infancy,